Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

Does tim hold the record for most flounces in a single thread?

In all seriousness, the running away to Google and finding new evidence in response to our answers was the most irritating aspect. Consider the move from CRaTER data to the NASA report. That was evident of him moving the goalposts following the whole discussion around his misinterpretation of the graph, the data and solar cycle issue. Rather than put his hand up and say I was wrong, he had to make up some story about log graphs while finding fresh data.

The real time discussions showed he could not answer the questions, and members here were not going to let him off the hook.

The whole 3D-2D thing toward the end needed closing down. It was getting seriously childish on his part. I felt he was simply getting his jollies after making such a hash of the CRaTER issue and the SAA polar orbit debacle, and it was his only way of saving face.

[MBDK]

(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)

Thanks for saying that.  I have been absent for a few days, and am trying to catch up.  When I read timfinch's question, I was shouting at my screen, and finally came upon your reply.  (sarcasm mode on) Obviously someone who knows so much more than all the accredited experts in the world should have already known that.  (mode off)

[Luke Pemberton]

(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)

Thanks for saying that.  I have been absent for a few days, and am trying to catch up.  When I read timfinch's question, I was shouting at my screen, and finally came upon your reply.  (sarcasm mode on) Obviously someone who knows so much more than all the accredited experts in the world should have already known that.  (mode off)

I did make reference to the misshapen magnetosphere a while ago, but forgot pick up on it again when Tim was insisting the radiation was uniform with radius.

The Earth's magnetosphere has influence on the radiation environment on the far side of the Moon and beyond.

Tim's reply:

I just read that scientist originally thought the tail of earth's magnetosphere should partially shield the moon from GCR flux but it turns out it provides no shielding to the high energy flux of GCR whatsoever and this is born out by the CraTer data.  Cislunar space is deep space.

[MBDK]

Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.

Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.

I cannot (or am actually too lazy to) verify the statement, but I found it interesting to read the one comment listed in tim's reference, and makes me wonder if he bothered to check it out.  That's a rhetorical question.

[bknight]

I'll be honest, I bluffed my way through parts of that discussion on orbital mechanics. You can ask molesworth and bknight. I had to send a few PMs out to clarify a few issues. Thanks again for the model Jason, that was most intuitive.

Mag40's link:  https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

This has kept me busy today reading through the medical kits, the mass of the astronauts before and after, the illnesses and ailments they suffered (7 blocked Eustachian tubes and some rhinitis). I was most intrigued that the bio med report suggests that the temperature on Apollo 13 was lower than that recorded by sensors.

Just so much to be gotten again.

Did anyone notice that Jay flounced too? My reckoning is that he got lost on log graphs and gave in. 

I believe that Jay observed him being a troll and discontinued the madness long before any of us.

[Luke Pemberton]

I believe that Jay observed him being a troll and discontinued the madness long before any of us.

Hence my  face. Jay did indeed make that sentiment known.

[MBDK]

NOMUSE,  do you accept that GCR for apollo 11 was .24 mgy/day or do you have a different number that you think is more appropriate?

No.  Your quoted level was for an AVERAGE of 1.0 mR/hr, and the accuracy of most (without knowing the specific type, it is impossible to ascertain exactly) radiac meters at the time was approximately plus or minus 20%.  An additional note is they said levels could double during solar minimum; whereas, we have since learned that they are more likely to quadruple, or even be higher.  That's what better instruments and more data can do for you.

[Mag40]

I want to summarise a few replies I have made, that clearly Tim has no intention of acknowledging properly:

a) You assessed the GCR levels in cis-lunar space by multiplying the quoted NASA hourly figure by 24. With you so far.
b) You then converted this to Greys. The conversion is not as accurate as it appears, but whatever.
c) What you fail to realise is that the figure quoted in the Radiation Report from NASA is extrapolated from the accumulation of the missions from Apollo 8/10/11/12/13/14/15 total hours in cis-lunar space and in and around the Moon. This figure is then applied to the total doses of the astronauts.
d) The actual figure of 1 mr/h that you use as your yardstick is taken from the very doses that you claim as faked.

If you cannot see the inherent problem here, then nothing can possibly get through to you.

[Luke Pemberton]

Let's try to be technically correct in our illustrations.  remember that It is not the ellipses that are identical rather it it the plane of the ellipses that are identical.  You struggle with the spatial awareness to properly evaluate the data before.  I wish I could help.

Tim, you are only moderated, so you can still answer questions and if you answer them, directly and honestly I believe LO will release your posts.

Orbits represented as 2D ellipses, overlaid over pictures of the VAB regions do not show the full picture. In reality, when observed from the 3D space in which we reside, you actually have a spaceship travelling along the surface of an ellipsoid and the VAB as a torus intersecting the volume of space described by the ellipsoid. You need to work out where the path (line integral) through the ellipsoid has common coordinates with the torus volume.

The orbital plane of TLI is inclined to the VAB torus. This means if I look down from above the orbital path, the path could appear to pass through the high energy proton region. If I look at the same orbit from a side view it could appear to pass over the top.

Drawing a 3D orbit as an ellipse is problematic as all you are really doing is taking a section through the ellipsoid volume on which the space craft moves. You can obtain an infinite number of ellipses (in theory). This is where your idea of 2D space being adequate to describe 3D space falls over.

When you look down on an orbit represented as an ellipse, you need to understand that progression along in the x-y plane is accompanied with a z change (there is a case mathematically where that does not happen).

In the case of the Apollo ellipse, the initial part of the outward bound ellipse would be where the Apollo craft also moves out of the page (your monitor), and takes the spacecraft over the top of the VAB.

Take it to the extreme, imagine an an orbit that is inclined such that the space craft goes straight through the hole of the torus, over the top of the VAB, underneath the VAB and back through the hole on the other side. As Abaddon keeps explaining you can put your finger through a hole doughnut. Looking from the side view the craft orbits the doughnut, but from the top view it looks like it passes through the dough. The overhead perspective means we lose  information. Just as much as a side view does not tell us how far into or out of our monitor the spacecraft appears.

Do you see this point now?

[MBDK]

I want to summarise a few replies I have made, that clearly Tim has no intention of acknowledging properly:

a) You assessed the GCR levels in cis-lunar space by multiplying the quoted NASA hourly figure by 24. With you so far.
b) You then converted this to Greys. The conversion is not as accurate as it appears, but whatever.
c) What you fail to realise is that the figure quoted in the Radiation Report from NASA is extrapolated from the accumulation of the missions from Apollo 8/10/11/12/13/14/15 total hours in cis-lunar space and in and around the Moon. This figure is then applied to the total doses of the astronauts.
d) The actual figure of 1 mr/h that you use as your yardstick is taken from the very doses that you claim as faked.

If you cannot see the inherent problem here, then nothing can possibly get through to you.

IMHO, c and d = game, set and match. 

Makes me legitimately wonder if timfinch didn't accidentally stumble upon that and decide to make his churlish exit before someone pointed that out, as you just did.

[bknight]

I believe that Jay observed him being a troll and discontinued the madness long before any of us.

Hence my  face. Jay did indeed make that sentiment known.

But of course.

[bknight]

(Actually, though, if you wanted to be accurate, the VARB is deformed by the solar wind. But we haven't been discussing that.)

Thanks for saying that.  I have been absent for a few days, and am trying to catch up.  When I read timfinch's question, I was shouting at my screen, and finally came upon your reply.  (sarcasm mode on) Obviously someone who knows so much more than all the accredited experts in the world should have already known that.  (mode off)

I wonder whether the solar wind shrinks the "height" of the VARB, looking at a side view.  I had never seen anything on this, and until this thread I hadn't considered this possibility.  If that were the case and I'm speculating here, then the trajectory of Apollo would have left the VARB earlier than Bob B's calculation.

My two cents, Tim no one on this board doubted the data you presented.  However, everyone questioned your understanding and manipulation of the data and therefore any conclusions that you drew rfom your mistakes.

[nomuse]

And while I'm at it, I'm going to own up that the .22/.24 isn't quite the slam dunk I made it out to be. The original figure Tim was cribbing was "1.0 or 0.6" (one in flight, one lunar surface). Tim multiplied the former to get his fabulous ".24 mgy/day." It LOOKS like a spurious assumption of more accuracy than the source allows, but it is still within the same number of digits as the source.

Thing is, that "1.0" could have been rounded from "0.95" or "1.04" -- after multiplying he would get a range from .228 to .250 . I feel safe in assuming the significant digits of his source for the total A11 reading is similar.

The number of digits in his source are insufficient to support his assumption that the ".02 mgy/day" difference between the numbers he arrived at has any significance.

And that's before you bring in such little quibbling bits as the problem doing a straight-line conversion from REM to Gray, which makes the error bars even larger.

It matters not.  Choose the low end or the high end.  Either is definitive proof of a hoax.  There is no room to add the exposure from the VAB transit or for the time spent in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface.  Unless you contend the apollo received no radiation from either then you have no basis for believing the mission dose is indicative of anything but a LEO mission.  Show some intellectual integrity and own up to the deceit.

First, goalpost shift.

Originally Tim presented this single comparison as being suspicious all by itself.

Second, when he shifted to using the CRATER data, even though he crowed about leaving out CREEP neutrons et al, he also left out all shielding effects of the spacecraft.

He's trying to present this in his over-the-shoulder post-flounce post as the question already being in doubt and all the new evidence that might be admitted is all on the same side. It isn't. The number of things he hasn't considered that have a negative impact on the final dosimetry reading is just as great.

[Luke Pemberton]

I wonder whether the solar wind shrinks the "height" of the VARB, looking at a side view.  I had never seen anything on this, and until this thread I hadn't considered this possibility.  If that were the case and I'm speculating here, then the trajectory of Apollo would have left the VARB earlier than Bob B's calculation.

As you know, Bob used the AE8 and AP8 model, which is exactly what it says on the tin, it is a model. It has its drawbacks, but has been constructed over many years based on improvements to data. I'm sure the engineers here will discuss its use in more detail.

Tim has a very simplistic view of the VABs. I'm really no expert, but I know the VABs are misshapen by solar activity, but thought it was more to do with interactions between the sun and Earth's magnetic field, rather than the solar wind buffeting the particles in the VAB (so to speak). Although an increase in the solar wind is linked to the sun undergoing magnetic changes.

In view of your speculation, its swings and roundabouts as the VABs are very dynamic. Another example of VAB dynamics are whistler waves. The VABs are essentially a plasma, and the interactions with solar particles and the magnetic field of the sun is complex. An increase in the solar wind can inject extra particles into the VAB. This can cause separation in the plasma and whistlers waves. In this case the proportion of higher energy electrons might increase as the electrons 'surf' along the wave. Therefore, the time in the VAB might become a little shorter, but the number of high energy particles at the horns might also increase, but these higher electrons will be localised along 'channels' in the plasma.

Going back to the line of questioning: The VAB is not a simple volume of space. There are many processes that occur to change the radiation in the VAB. So to make hand waving arguments about radiation uniformity is grossly incorrect. To correlate scientific data and actual dosimeter readings is beyond the boundaries of acceptable analysis, for all the reasons discussed (i.e. detector differences, improvements in detection, detector type, detector location, different solar cycles, taking averages... etc).

The main property of the outer belts, which Apollo skirted with TLI,  is that it's a region of electrons. The flux of the higher energy electrons drops very quickly; and the lower energy electrons are readily shielded.

I think you are correct though, and your speculation is applicable in context of this thread. Tim was fallacious in strictly adhering to the results of scientific data and applying his extrapolations to actual events almost 50 years ago. He does not understand the limitations of the models and the caveats associated with the scientific literature. To apply them in such a manner to dismiss Apollo is the same old HB tactic that has failed time and time again, namely to cherry pick and quote mine in order to prove a case based on a fallacy of equivalence. Your whataboutery is indeed valid to this discussion, if only to highlight the complexity of the problem and how hand waving simplifications do not deserve merit.

[bknight]

I knew that Bob had used the AE8 and AP8 model, as his web site indicated so.  He even indicated that integration of the data would be more precise, but his small body calculations were accurate enough and the conclusion of 0.16 rads from both in and out bound travels in minor in the overall average dosimeter reading of A11.
Thanks for the description